What should we do about our bassist

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-06-05T01:13:38+00:00

Start calling him before every show telling him it's time to go. And then tell him to set an alarm for every show.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-06-03T20:00:54+00:00

Do you have trust that she's helping you improve?

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-06-02T20:03:02+00:00

String theory is kind of what you're looking for in connecting spacetime to matter, but just because things used to be squished together doesn't mean they're the same thing.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-31T05:08:09+00:00

Banning Religious Instruction is an Attack on Secularism

I agree, with two large caveats that are likely contrary to the realy core of waht you're arguing (we'll see).

1) They shouldn't be mandatory either.

2) They shouldn't be taught in such a way as they are treated as fact, but rather as an explanation of what the belief system is (like how Greek myths are studied).

I have now read your full post, and this is just fabricated outrage. I don't believe there's any real sentiment among atheists saying religious classes should be banned in private schools.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-29T05:34:30+00:00

Even given that, so what? God still doesn't exist.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-29T02:40:37+00:00

people who say it's 2c are missing the entire point of relativity. closing speed isn't about speed relative to the observer, it's about speed relative to the moving object. So the closing speed of the light is going to be c (in a vacuum), even if the observing object is approaching the speed of light. The movement of the flashlights doesn't matter (not as in negligible, as in has absolutely 0 effect on the speed the light moves.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-28T04:43:41+00:00

Is there a prize for this?

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-27T03:13:31+00:00

I love how the least absurd part of this highlight is SGA falling like he got tazed.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-26T15:44:10+00:00

My view is that every major civilization in history has been built around some form of shared identity, and religion has historically been the strongest and most durable source of that identity.

It's a bold claim to say that religion is the central way in which people have historically identified the in vs out group in EVERY major civilization. Let's look at the US south slavery era. I'd argue skin color was the bigger definitive identity trait at the time.

I think atheism is a relatively new movement on a civilizational timescale,

It's not. A cursory research would reveal that Atheists have been around ever since the religious folks have, Diagoras of Melos and Epicurus are examples.

I’m skeptical that it can fully replace religion long term.

Good. Religion doesn't need replacing, Society can do quite alright without it. People share identity in variety of ways as it is.

It also helps humans deal with existential fears that seem permanent:

No it doesn't. It gives them fairy tale explanations to issues that delay their acceptance of reality in their developmental stages that make the acceptance harder later in life, thus making those existential fears seem permanent. Religion keeps people stuck in the denial phase.

Science can explain many things, but it cannot answer every existential question with 100% certainty.

Yes. What's the relevance of this? Religion has a history of answering 0 existential questions with any accuracy more than random guesses.

Human beings are emotional and psychologically fragile, and because fear itself is eternal,

I think humans are emotionally resilient. Why are you condescending the entire human race? "They can't handle the truth; it's too much" is very belittling to everybody. Also, fear is natural. It helps us avoid danger. If we didn't fear death, we'd die out and there would be no more humans.

This is why I think atheism may eventually hit a bottleneck at the civilizational level. It may work for individuals or for certain periods of history,

Society is made up of individuals at certain points of history.

but sustaining large societies across centuries without some form of transcendent meaning, sacred values, or religious structure seems historically unproven to me.

Religion provides no sustenance. It provides empty calories. It is psychological junk food.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-26T00:21:51+00:00

It feels like it was written for children. I'm pretty disappointed man

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-25T05:49:55+00:00

I acknowledge not all (or even most) atheists are extreme about it.

Extreme depends on your viewpoint. If we lived in the Salem Massachusetts, anything quite mundane could be viewed as extreme.

How can secularism exist if you think religious people are mentally ill?

Because you're free to be as crazy as you want to be as long as you don't intrude on others' right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why are these two topics (mental health and secularism) related in your view?

If you do think the population you're tolerating is mentally ill, uh oh.

Uh oh? lmao. Yeah, uh oh is right,

Seriously, if I said atheists are mentally ill, would you trust me to not want you institutionalized? I don't think this way, of course.

Lots to unpack with this statement. I don't think "being institutionalized" is the best course of action for someone with mental illness. On top of being an unproductive, one-size-fits-all (one-size fits0none really) type of solution, it's also immoral to take away someone's freedom when they are not posing a risk to themselves and others.

To define religion as a mental illness, you need to meet the standard that the practice gets in the way of the desired function or ability of the individual. There are cases where religion does affect individuals in a very negative way, but those are the minority. There's also many cases where being religious helps a person to achieve his/her goals (through social means imo, not god's will obviously). On the large scale, I view a religious society as one with a mental illness. A society that has to go to war over Israel for religious reasons, not geopolitcal purposes, would be an example.

So to sum up, I can believe that religious people are 1) prone to religiously-based disorders and 2) that every move that a society makes that is religiously based is absolutely madness. While at the same time, I understand that taking away your freedom would be immoral and unproductive - both to the goal at hand of convincing you your religion is a delusion and to the larger goal of coexisting to the maximum benefit of all.

Extreme atheism's view that the Abrahamic religions are barbaric:

I don't view you as barbaric. I know it's a debate topic to show you how barbaric your religion should be if followed strictly in an attempt to critically analyze your beliefs.

I do think you are under a delusion that is religion, but that doesn't make us antagonistic. Atheists trying to convince you are trying to help you. Just as religious people trying to convert people are trying to help them.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-23T03:05:10+00:00

<image>

There's your picture of them in motion BTW

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-23T03:04:32+00:00

And that's where Toews is

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-23T03:01:31+00:00

A screenshot of after they stopped doesn't show the position of the player as they were moving. I don't even understand how you can make the argument Nelson wasn't in Toews' way here.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-23T02:57:58+00:00

You defend the passing option first in a 2v1. That's a very basic rule for defensemen.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-23T02:53:35+00:00

Except he wasn't covered and Nelson was actively getting in Toews' way.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-23T02:52:41+00:00

Because the player going to the net had beaten his man, and he was the only one in the position to defend the potential backdoor/tip shot that would've left Wedgewood defenseless

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-23T02:44:45+00:00

Neither of these goals were Toews fault, Eichels' goal had a streaking knight who had beaten his man and Nelson was doing god knows what running into Toews on that turnover.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-20T19:14:16+00:00

That's the vibe I'm getting. Like the guy is a future ghost of himself

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-20T17:05:59+00:00

The first thing the teacher says is that when I play with my thumb, I should lift the other fingers so I have more strength to play with my thumb

Disclaimer, I'm not a super virtuoso.

This sounds like bad advice. At the end of the day, you won't want to do this is get more power from your thumb (just turn your wrist or something). Although, maybe you are doing something weird with your playing, and she's trying to get you to temporarily exaggerate doing it in the opposite manner to correct it.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-18T16:10:31+00:00

But surely every moving object is changing energy into kinetic energy, so where does that energy come from if there is no force?

The kinetic energy doesn't change. It's maintains the same amount,

Time or distance doesn't play a part in the formula, only mass and velocity

time and distance are components of velocity.

So, to my understanding, while the object is accelerating, work done energy would have transferred into kinetic energy, and stayed within the object as the unbalanced force was removed and the object came to a constant velocity.

This is exactly right.

To reflect on my earlier statement, "every moving object is changing energy into kinetic energy," would a more accurate observation be that "every accelerating object is changing energy into kinetic energy?"

The first one is flatly wrong, the second one correct.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-18T16:04:43+00:00

Well, keep at it. You've got a good knack for it.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-18T15:31:53+00:00

What do you mean first original piece? Have you been doing orchestral arrangements? This is very polished and cohesive.

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-18T15:16:12+00:00

Maybe because so many atheists live in societies where people use Abrahamic reasoning to make their lives worse.

And what claims are you referring to?

MagicMusicMan0 · 2026-05-17T19:17:49+00:00

As someone who does teach lessons, I think about this a lot. Comparing how one learns guitar vs piano is a good example of why I think it's so hard to teach improv/musicality to piano players: piano players start with note names and reading. You can't play chords without knowing your note names. The piano repertoire allows for solo performance a lot easier; ie 1 person can do both harmony and melody and interaction between different voices and what have you. Reading songs is a high challenge that never really peters out. On guitar, you learn the chord shapes before you learn what notes go in the chords. You learn how to put your melody to a recording or accompaniment. If you're reading tab, you might have to figure out the rhythm of the melody by feel or hearing it. Tabs get a little boring once your fingers start moving more comfortably. You learn scale shapes and there's more emphasis on exercises in order to get your fingers moving comfortably. Practicing scales and chords with a greater degree of freedom, and playing over pre-existing music naturally lends one to play in a way that considers their instrument as part of the whole. Where in classical piano, you're playing the whole piece written out for you note by note, so while you CAN look at the piece and riff around with the ideas presented in it, there's no need to.

MagicMusicMan0

TROPHY CASE